Why aren't garments subsidized?

[AmyKate88]

So, I was talking to my boyfriend a couple days ago, and he mentioned that he experienced some sticker shock when he went to buy garments the other day. He added that he doesn't get why garments aren't tithing subsidized, since so many other things are within the church.

I think he has a good point, so I started thinking about it to. If BYU is tithing subsidized, which few members proportional to the total amount get to attend, then why aren't garments, which are doctrinally-speaking mandatory for endowed members, also subsidized?

note: I'm not trying to be contentious about this, I just think it is an interesting thing to think about.

[Wingnut]

It's an interesting idea, one I'd never thought about. I think that the prices are probably already pretty low, compared with production costs, but I agree that it does seem somewhat excessive and a bit of a strain.

[havejoy]

I had the opposite reaction when I bought my first G's, I could believe how cheap they were. To me buying garments are less expensive than buying regular under clothing.

That said though, if an endowed member needs help buying them, I'm sure the Bishop would help.

[AmyKate88]

Yeah, I mean they are definitely cheaper than conventional underwear, but still, they are required in order to be in good standing with the church if you are endowed, so I guess I don't understand why they wouldn't then be tithing subsidized.

Another point is that while men can (probably) go with just garment tops and bottoms as underwear, women still need to wear bras and possibly regular underwear if they wanted. So thus the garments would be an extra piece, not a replacement for underwear.

I'm sure it's not a financial strain on my boyfriend (I hope not!), but I think it makes more sense for them to be subsidized through tithing.

[Just_A_Guy]

IIRC, first-time temple goers are given a card that allows them to buy 8-10 sets at a pretty deeply discounted price.

Otherwise - I'm with Wingnut and Havejoy - garments have never struck me as being particularly expensive. When you consider the amount of cloth involve and labor costs, there's a good chance they already are subsidized.

[Wingnut]

Yeah, I mean they are definitely cheaper than conventional underwear, but still, they are required in order to be in good standing with the church if you are endowed, so I guess I don't understand why they wouldn't then be tithing subsidized.

Another point is that while men can (probably) go with just garment tops and bottoms as underwear, women still need to wear bras and possibly regular underwear if they wanted. So thus the garments would be an extra piece, not a replacement for underwear.

I'm sure it's not a financial strain on my boyfriend (I hope not!), but I think it makes more sense for them to be subsidized through tithing.

That's a good point that women still have to buy other stuff as well. I think they are expensive compared with traditional underclothing, but not very expensive compared to their productions costs. For example, the fabric used is probably higher-quality (read: more expensive) that the plain cotton that you could buy panties in at Target. But you could buy a package of 3 pairs of panties (very basic, nothing cute or fancy) for about $10. For that price, you can get one full set of garments.

IIRC, first-time temple goers are given a card that allows them to buy 8-10 sets at a pretty deeply discounted price.

I think I got mine with my mission paperwork, so it may not be for all first-time goers.

[Gwen]

i didn't get a card for garments... lol but i did get all my other first time temple clothes half off.

i think in comparison garments are fairly priced. you would probably pay more for regular underclothes that cover a whole lot less. i know if someone has trouble affording them the church will help out just like any other need situation. i've been involved with that when i was rs pres yrs ago.

yes women still need a bra but you would be getting that in addition to underclothes anyway so that really makes no difference in cost for a woman. as for the panties yes you may need some regular ones on hand but you are talking a few pair not the same amt you would need if you were not endowed.

[WmLee]

Yep, first time out you receive 8 to 10 sets at less than half cost. If you are going to serve in the temple, again, your clothing is less than half cost. The regular cost for all of these are far less than what you purchase conventional clothing for and if a member has financial problems the bishop would assist, (he fills out the form and there is no cost).

Everyone else, purchasing what is needed as inexpensive as they are, help cover the cost for when someone receives it at a discount or at no cost.

[ryanh]

Boy do I ever wish that other clothing articles that I get at for-profit stores were so inexpensive!!!

[pam]

I guess I look at it from a different perspective. I don't see it as "having" to wear them but a privilege to wear them to show the covenants you made when you went to the temple. Seems like such a small price to pay for that privilege.

You'd be purchasing undergarments anyway. I would much rather see the tithing money spent on temples and other things that build up the kingdom than subsidizing for something that to me is considered a privilege more than a "have to" kind of thing.

JMHO

[Wingnut]

yes women still need a bra but you would be getting that in addition to underclothes anyway so that really makes no difference in cost for a woman.

I disagree. If I wasn't endowed, I would buy bras and panties. Being endowed, I buy bras, fewer panties, garment tops, and garment bottoms. I don't think most unendowed women wear other underclothing besides a bra and panties.

I guess I look at it from a different perspective. I don't see it as "having" to wear them but a privilege to wear them to show the covenants you made when you went to the temple. Seems like such a small price to pay for that privilege.

Good point pam. I'm feeling a little humbled at the moment. :)

You'd be purchasing undergarments anyway. I would much rather see the tithing money spent on temples and other things that build up the kingdom than subsidizing for something that to me is considered a privilege more than a "have to" kind of thing.

JMHO

I think part of AmyKate's point is that she still has to buy other undergarments in addition to temple garments. Maybe the Church should subsidize garment costs for women, but not for men.

[Gwen]

I disagree. If I wasn't endowed, I would buy bras and panties. Being endowed, I buy bras, fewer panties, garment tops, and garment bottoms. I don't think most unendowed women wear other underclothing besides a bra and panties.

fair enough.... i can see where it would be different for some.....

my thinking... before i got endowed i had a lot of panties and bras....

currently i buy bras, garment bottoms, garment tops....

if i were not endowed right now i would probably be buying bras, a lot of panties, and some kind of undershirt (though not as many as i keep in garment tops) since the style right now is for tops to be short and jeans to be the "low rise" which causes certain areas to be exposed when moving around. just doesn't work for me. so really no big difference in the amt of underclothing.

[WindRiver]

My guess is that they are subsidized. Knowing how the church runs things, most likely they are sold right at cost or even slightly below the cost of production.

Some interesting history on the garment - Originally the saints would make their own garments based on the pattern given to them by the church.

It was not until the 1930s that Beehive Clothing was created to provide a standardized ready to wear garment for the members.

Also, in Utah not that many years ago LDS garments were sold at non LDS owned / run stores such as J.C. Penney. They were also sold at ZCMI, a church owned store. Anyone who wanted some could buy them. No showing of a recommend required. They were essentially unfinished and the buyer would modify or add the marks themselves. Several changes were made over the years. In 1970 the two piece garment was offered. Using only white fabric was not officially established until 1893. Military personal are allowed to wear tan and olive drab colored garments that can be procured through the distribution center.

And just so someone doesn't get all upset about mentioning the marks on garments, that isn't a taboo topic unless you get specific about their description or meaning. The marks are mentioned in several places on official church web sites.

Here is just one for quick reference:

LDS.org - Liahona Article - The Temple Garment: An Outward Expression of an Inward Commitment

This page talks about how it is not appropriate for non endowed members to try on marked garments for size. I had forgotten about that bit of information. The ones you try on before your endowment are unmarked. So basically you should not try on your parent's, siblings or a friends garments to gauge the size you want to buy, before you are endowed.

LDS.org - New Era Article - Questions about Temple Marriage

Edited February 17, 2010 by WindRiver

[annamaureen]

In my experience, garments last longer than regular panties, anyway.

[Traveler]

So, I was talking to my boyfriend a couple days ago, and he mentioned that he experienced some sticker shock when he went to buy garments the other day. He added that he doesn't get why garments aren't tithing subsidized, since so many other things are within the church.

I think he has a good point, so I started thinking about it to. If BYU is tithing subsidized, which few members proportional to the total amount get to attend, then why aren't garments, which are doctrinally-speaking mandatory for endowed members, also subsidized?

note: I'm not trying to be contentious about this, I just think it is an interesting thing to think about.

BYU is not subsidized with tithing. The subsidies that the Church gives to BYU and other education come from other than tithing funds and donations. In general the church has a pay as you go attitude. Most of the funding and assistance for the poor comes from fast offerings and humanitarian assistance donations.

The principle of consecration is a concept of assistance not sharing; in that we all are responsible for our stewardships. Some think it is an attitude of pay what you can and take what you need. That is not quite correct. It is more an attitude of work first and be generous with your fellow man. The prevalent idea of subsidies (especially for personal things) is not the principle I think is what is trying to be taught.

The Traveler

[pam]

I'm not sure I agree that BYU is not subsidized by tithing.

Tithing funds are always used for the Lord's purposes—to build and maintain temples and meetinghouses, to sustain missionary work, to educate Church members, and to carry on the work of the Lord throughout the world.

MormonTimes - International students upset over change in BYU's policy

Because BYU is subsidized by LDS tithing funds, that yearly cost, which includes tuition, room and board, books, etc., is significantly lower than the yearly cost for international students at the University of Utah ($29,200), Utah State University, ($29,200), Weber State University ($24,000), Southern Utah University ($22,200) or Utah Valley University ($19,400).

Edited February 17, 2010 by pam

[Wingnut]

I'm not sure I agree that BYU is not subsidized by tithing.

Tithing funds are always used for the Lord's purposes—to build and maintain temples and meetinghouses, to sustain missionary work, to educate Church members, and to carry on the work of the Lord throughout the world.

MormonTimes - International students upset over change in BYU's policy

Because BYU is subsidized by LDS tithing funds, that yearly cost, which includes tuition, room and board, books, etc., is significantly lower than the yearly cost for international students at the University of Utah ($29,200), Utah State University, ($29,200), Weber State University ($24,000), Southern Utah University ($22,200) or Utah Valley University ($19,400).

It's also worth noting that students only receive the benefits of the subsidization if they themselves are full tithe payers. Non-members or non-full-tithe payers pay more to attend BYU.

[pam]

I wasn't aware of that criteria. I was with the understanding they just had to be members of the Church with a recommendation from their Bishop etc. I went to Ricks College which was subsidized by tithing and I was never questioned each year or semester as to whether I was a full time tithe payor to determine my LDS eligibility.

But that was many years ago.

Edit: According to BYU's website, a person is considered a member if they get baptized at any point during the semester. I can't find anything on their website that states that criteria.

[Wingnut]

I wasn't aware of that criteria. I was with the understanding they just had to be members of the Church with a recommendation from their Bishop etc. I went to Ricks College which was subsidized by tithing and I was never questioned each year or semester as to whether I was a full time tithe payor to determine my LDS eligibility.

But that was many years ago.

Edit: According to BYU's website, a person is considered a member if they get baptized at any point during the semester. I can't find anything on their website that states that criteria.

I just seem to remember that tithing was a question involved in the bishop's recommend interview process.

[pam]

Perhaps for entrance. But I could see a logistical nightmare to have to have each student prove they are a full time tithe payor to continue receiving the LDS fee amount.

I may have been asked when I was applying. It was so long ago. But I know I was never asked again for any of the following semesters or years I was there.

[Dravin]

I'm not the richest person, but $50 (don't know how women's compare) for 7 tops and bottoms (one for each day of the week) that last at least 3 years (that's what my current ones are going on) doesn't seem bad at all. That's ~$17 a year and going down, at this point the only reason I'd be buying new ones is my current ones don't fit that well, but they aren't about to wear out any time soon.

Also I notice when going to the Argentina version of the catalog website that the cost for a top (the kind I'd be paying $3.60 for) is 4 ARS, or ~ $1.04 so it's not like everyone is paying US prices.

Edited February 17, 2010 by Dravin

[beefche]

I wasn't aware of that criteria. I was with the understanding they just had to be members of the Church with a recommendation from their Bishop etc. I went to Ricks College which was subsidized by tithing and I was never questioned each year or semester as to whether I was a full time tithe payor to determine my LDS eligibility.

But that was many years ago.

Edit: According to BYU's website, a person is considered a member if they get baptized at any point during the semester. I can't find anything on their website that states that criteria.

I was a non-member who attended BYU my first semester. My tuition was about $400 more than members. I was baptized during my Christmas break and the next semester my tuition went down. No questions of full tithe paying was asked--it was an automatic thing (I'm assuming they received my church records).

[MarginOfError]

I'm not the richest person, but $50 (don't know how women's compare) for 7 tops and bottoms (one for each day of the week) that last at least 3 years (that's what my current ones are going on) doesn't seem bad at all. That's ~$17 a year and going down, at this point the only reason I'd be buying new ones is my current ones don't fit that well, but they aren't about to wear out any time soon.

Also I notice when going to the Argentina version of the catalog website that the cost for a top (the kind I'd be paying $3.60 for) is 4 ARS, or ~ $1.04 so it's not like everyone is paying US prices.

Three years? That's it? I still have some that I bought when I was first endowed in 1999! Then again, they've worn so thin that they're practically transparent (I've been telling myself to buy new ones for about 5 years now).

I guess that might be the new mormon lingerie.

[pam]

I was a non-member who attended BYU my first semester. My tuition was about $400 more than members. I was baptized during my Christmas break and the next semester my tuition went down. No questions of full tithe paying was asked--it was an automatic thing (I'm assuming they received my church records).

That's the way I've always understood it.

[Moksha]

First you subsidize garments, next you have one world socialism with health care.